From: Adam M. G. <z_c...@sh...> - 2010-07-28 16:55:11
|
On Jul 28, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: > "Adam M. Goldstein" > <z_c...@sh...> writes: >>> I don't think we should pollute the well-understood notion of the OWA >>> with an ontology-specific definition. With the above definition we >>> have the confusing situation of closed-world ontologies built on the >>> formal logic open world assumption. >> >> Isn't Barry in agreement with you here? He says that the "an ontology >> is built on the OWA if is is NOT associated with any claim to >> completeness," which is what you (Chris) also seem to be saying. >> Either the ontology meets the OWA or it doesn't, and we don't want to >> say something which really doesn't make sense, like "my ontology >> satisfies the CWA for proteins." >> >> Right? > > > I don't think that this is right. The Open World Assumption is not a > property of the ontology, but the logical language in which the ontology > is encoded. > For the record, by "ontology" I meant something to the effect of: a formal account of the semantics of a language L, i.e., definitions of the logical symbols, names, variables, predicates, and interpretations for each. Agreed, there are many such things that are not ontologies (many that don't make any sense at all, even, to humans), but I am highlighting this aspect of ontologies, whatever else they are. ------------------ Adam M. Goldstein PhD, MSLIS -- z_c...@sh... http://www.shiftingbalance.org http://www.twitter.com/shiftingbalance -- http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180621 -- Associate Editor Reviews Editor Evolution: Education & Outreach http://www.springer.com/life+sci/journal/12052 -- (914) 637-2717 (msg) -- Dept of Philosophy Iona College 715 North Avenue New Rochelle NY 10801 |